Comments on: Reddit (sorta) censors Atheism http://dbzer0.com/blog/reddit-sorta-censors-atheism A bug in the code of the universe. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:12:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: infomate team http://dbzer0.com/blog/reddit-sorta-censors-atheism/comment-page-1#comment-78092 infomate team Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:34:29 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=2793#comment-78092 Why don’t you give a try to <a href="http://www.infomate.org?" target="_blank">http://www.infomate.org?</a> It’s a not-for-profit fully democratic self-regulatory information sharing community. It works through a mixture of direct and representative democratic processes. The friends system, community tagging and elected moderators(severely limited in power and their actions can be “overturned” by the community) ensure that the place doesn't turn into a mess and stays interesting for everyone. Why don’t you give a try to http://www.infomate.org? It’s a not-for-profit fully democratic self-regulatory information sharing community. It works through a mixture of direct and representative democratic processes.

The friends system, community tagging and elected moderators(severely limited in power and their actions can be “overturned” by the community) ensure that the place doesn't turn into a mess and stays interesting for everyone.

]]> By: db0 http://dbzer0.com/blog/reddit-sorta-censors-atheism/comment-page-1#comment-75700 db0 Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:06:56 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=2793#comment-75700 Heh, funny, most people mistakenly assume my alias has relations to Databases as well :) Heh, funny, most people mistakenly assume my alias has relations to Databases as well :)

]]> By: db2 http://dbzer0.com/blog/reddit-sorta-censors-atheism/comment-page-1#comment-75699 db2 Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:49:56 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=2793#comment-75699 db2 is a database from IBM: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_DB2" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_DB2</a> db2 is a database from IBM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_DB2

]]> By: db0 http://dbzer0.com/blog/reddit-sorta-censors-atheism/comment-page-1#comment-75667 db0 Thu, 27 Aug 2009 22:09:27 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=2793#comment-75667 Yeah, I thought the same thing when I saw yours. Does it stand for anything? Yeah, I thought the same thing when I saw yours. Does it stand for anything?

]]> By: db2 http://dbzer0.com/blog/reddit-sorta-censors-atheism/comment-page-1#comment-75659 db2 Thu, 27 Aug 2009 19:38:31 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=2793#comment-75659 It's on the top bar now, at ranking 15. /r/christianity suddenly MAGICALLY got promoted to eleven. I like your username btw. :) It's on the top bar now, at ranking 15. /r/christianity suddenly MAGICALLY got promoted to eleven.

I like your username btw. :)

]]> By: Josh http://dbzer0.com/blog/reddit-sorta-censors-atheism/comment-page-1#comment-75652 Josh Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:48:55 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=2793#comment-75652 I see the context of that quote is that he's talking about the entire reddit community. The idea that some things on reddit are not appropriate for the front page is nothing new. Anything requiring age verification is already excluded, for example. I agree that it is a concern that this attitude could be applied to /atheism/ specifically. I see the context of that quote is that he's talking about the entire reddit community. The idea that some things on reddit are not appropriate for the front page is nothing new. Anything requiring age verification is already excluded, for example.

I agree that it is a concern that this attitude could be applied to /atheism/ specifically.

]]> By: db0 http://dbzer0.com/blog/reddit-sorta-censors-atheism/comment-page-1#comment-75651 db0 Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:33:48 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=2793#comment-75651 And as I said I don't have a lot of problem with that either as much as I have with the way this has been handled but the motives of the admins do need to (and should be) be called in question when they say stuff like <blockquote> We hope there is a place for everyone on reddit, and we also hope you realize <b>not everything found on reddit is appropriate for the front page</b></blockquote> which in the context of the current controversy raises a lot of eyebrows. In short the difference between our two perspectives is that in light of their behaviour, I'm inclined to not immediately assume benign motives and start to question more. And I think that healthy for the community of reddit. And as I said I don't have a lot of problem with that either as much as I have with the way this has been handled but the motives of the admins do need to (and should be) be called in question when they say stuff like

We hope there is a place for everyone on reddit, and we also hope you realize not everything found on reddit is appropriate for the front page

which in the context of the current controversy raises a lot of eyebrows. In short the difference between our two perspectives is that in light of their behaviour, I'm inclined to not immediately assume benign motives and start to question more. And I think that healthy for the community of reddit.

]]> By: Josh http://dbzer0.com/blog/reddit-sorta-censors-atheism/comment-page-1#comment-75650 Josh Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:26:30 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=2793#comment-75650 You're making the assumption that their ideas about the activity specifically in /atheism/ is going to influence any future algorithms. This seems to be an unreasonable step to me. It seems their main issue is the downvote spamming, and any new algorithms are going to be addressing that problem, not aimed at keeping /atheism/ out of he top 10. /atheism/ might not be in the top ten under a new algorithm, but that is a side effect of addressing the root problem, not the result of an action taken directly against the sub-reddit itself. You're treating spez's statement as something set into stone - that is, since he doesn't think that /atheism/ deserves to be in the top 10 based on the activity it gets, he's going to insure that it's not there. This is what they've done in the short term, but as he himself says, they're still working on the problem. The way it reads to me is that once they get an algorithm that better calculates popularity and solves the downvote spamming problem, they're going to remove any manual filters, and /atheism/ will be able to stand on it's own once again. I don't see a problem with that at all, if that's the case. You're making the assumption that their ideas about the activity specifically in /atheism/ is going to influence any future algorithms. This seems to be an unreasonable step to me.

It seems their main issue is the downvote spamming, and any new algorithms are going to be addressing that problem, not aimed at keeping /atheism/ out of he top 10. /atheism/ might not be in the top ten under a new algorithm, but that is a side effect of addressing the root problem, not the result of an action taken directly against the sub-reddit itself.

You're treating spez's statement as something set into stone – that is, since he doesn't think that /atheism/ deserves to be in the top 10 based on the activity it gets, he's going to insure that it's not there. This is what they've done in the short term, but as he himself says, they're still working on the problem. The way it reads to me is that once they get an algorithm that better calculates popularity and solves the downvote spamming problem, they're going to remove any manual filters, and /atheism/ will be able to stand on it's own once again. I don't see a problem with that at all, if that's the case.

]]> By: db0 http://dbzer0.com/blog/reddit-sorta-censors-atheism/comment-page-1#comment-75649 db0 Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:10:49 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=2793#comment-75649 You must then not have followed my links because it's been noticed that the algorithm has been modified already and Atheism is not on the top. Most people would be fine with that, even if generally annoyed at the way this whole thing has been handled (which was a large part of my point) but the problem is that it seems as if it's still being deliberately excluded from the top-bar, even if it deserves to be there by the new algorithm and to claim that Atheism with at least a solid 1/3 of populace of reddit doesn't deserve to be on the top 25 reddits is ridiculous. As such this is not jumping to conclusions but is based on solid investigation by reddit atheists who start to be a little more suspicious. <blockquote>This is completely unsupported by the information we have now.</blockquote> Untrue, the argument from the reddit admins is that they do not think that Atheism deserves to be on the top 10 based on the "activity" it gets. As such any algorithm they design to fix this can't by definition of this belief put Atheism in the top 10. It's can very well be argued that the kind of activity makes a reddit be considered "active" is up to the admins and that's perfectly ok but one can't avoid pointing out the potential flaw in this logic You must then not have followed my links because it's been noticed that the algorithm has been modified already and Atheism is not on the top. Most people would be fine with that, even if generally annoyed at the way this whole thing has been handled (which was a large part of my point) but the problem is that it seems as if it's still being deliberately excluded from the top-bar, even if it deserves to be there by the new algorithm and to claim that Atheism with at least a solid 1/3 of populace of reddit doesn't deserve to be on the top 25 reddits is ridiculous. As such this is not jumping to conclusions but is based on solid investigation by reddit atheists who start to be a little more suspicious.

This is completely unsupported by the information we have now.

Untrue, the argument from the reddit admins is that they do not think that Atheism deserves to be on the top 10 based on the "activity" it gets. As such any algorithm they design to fix this can't by definition of this belief put Atheism in the top 10. It's can very well be argued that the kind of activity makes a reddit be considered "active" is up to the admins and that's perfectly ok but one can't avoid pointing out the potential flaw in this logic

]]> By: Josh http://dbzer0.com/blog/reddit-sorta-censors-atheism/comment-page-1#comment-75646 Josh Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:55:07 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=2793#comment-75646 I reread spez's post to make sure about this. He's not claiming the problem has been fixed. In fact, the very last sentence in his post is talking about specifically that: they're going to fix it, it's not fixed yet. I took this to mean the new algorithm hasn't even been installed, so at this point, I don't see what the problem is with having /r/atheism excluded. I guess my over-arching point is that to jump to the conclusion that /atheism/ is being at least partially censored, or that the reddit admins are acting out of some sort of malice. In your original post you're drawing conclusions like "That is, the measure of success depends on /r/Atheism not being on the top!" This is completely unsupported by the information we have now. Okay, so you want more facts about the type and magnitude of vote spamming going on. I don't have any problem with that. I just think it's unreasonable to jump to the conclusions you have based on the information we have. I reread spez's post to make sure about this. He's not claiming the problem has been fixed. In fact, the very last sentence in his post is talking about specifically that: they're going to fix it, it's not fixed yet. I took this to mean the new algorithm hasn't even been installed, so at this point, I don't see what the problem is with having /r/atheism excluded.

I guess my over-arching point is that to jump to the conclusion that /atheism/ is being at least partially censored, or that the reddit admins are acting out of some sort of malice.

In your original post you're drawing conclusions like "That is, the measure of success depends on /r/Atheism not being on the top!" This is completely unsupported by the information we have now. Okay, so you want more facts about the type and magnitude of vote spamming going on. I don't have any problem with that. I just think it's unreasonable to jump to the conclusions you have based on the information we have.

]]>